aaron.ballman added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Interp/Interp.cpp:446-448
+static void DiagnoseUninitializedSubobject(InterpState &S, const SourceInfo
&SI,
+ QualType SubObjType,
+ SourceLocation SL) {
----------------
Some comments describing what `SL` does would be helpful, since it's a bit
special.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Interp/Interp.cpp:464
+
+ if (auto RT = ElemType->getAs<RecordType>()) {
+ const Record *R = BasePtr.getElemRecord();
----------------
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Interp/Interp.cpp:467-472
+ const Pointer ElemPtr = BasePtr.atIndex(I).narrow();
+ Result &= CheckFieldsInitialized(S, OpPC, ElemPtr, R);
+ }
+ } else if (auto *ElemCAT = dyn_cast<ConstantArrayType>(ElemType)) {
+ for (size_t I = 0; I != NumElems; ++I) {
+ const Pointer ElemPtr = BasePtr.atIndex(I).narrow();
----------------
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Interp/Interp.cpp:501
} else if (FieldType->isArrayType()) {
- // FIXME: Arrays need to be handled here as well I think.
+ const ArrayType *AT = FieldType->getAsArrayTypeUnsafe();
+ assert(AT);
----------------
Do element qualifiers matter for checking initialization? (I don't think they
do, but double-checking to be sure there's not something special for atomics or
something like that.)
================
Comment at: clang/lib/AST/Interp/Interp.cpp:501-503
+ const ArrayType *AT = FieldType->getAsArrayTypeUnsafe();
+ assert(AT);
+ const auto *CAT = cast<ConstantArrayType>(AT);
----------------
aaron.ballman wrote:
> Do element qualifiers matter for checking initialization? (I don't think they
> do, but double-checking to be sure there's not something special for atomics
> or something like that.)
`cast<>` already asserts if given a null pointer.
================
Comment at: clang/test/AST/Interp/cxx20.cpp:119
+ A a;
+ constexpr C2() {} // expected-note {{subobject of type 'int' is not
initialized}}
+ };
----------------
This note is kind of confusing to me. At this location, it's not a subobject of
type `int` that matters, it's `A` that's not fully initialized, and within `A`
the note points out which field is not initialized.
I think this could get especially confusing in a case like:
```
class C {
public:
A a;
int b = 0;
constexpr C() {}
}
```
because we'll talk about `int` not being initialized and it will look very much
like it is.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D136828/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D136828
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
